daniel

daniel wrote

Sometimes it's not about the source of the research or the author or the article reporting on it, it's just about the objective facts. If someone collects a hundred studies and writes a paper about their conclusions, then a bunch of the original study authors come out and explicitly state that their research was misrepresented - that is a problem.

It's even a bigger problem when their objections are ignored, and the incorrect findings of the meta analysis are repeated continuously forever. This applies to any topic, not just climate. It's misleading and when intentional, it's unethical.

−1

daniel wrote

Right, it's not simple. But you can't make hyperbolic predictions that the Arctic will be ice free by 2014 and then not get called out on it when it demonstrably and utterly fails to come to happen. In fact recent years have seen increases in the thickness of Arctic ice. Don't kill the messenger.

−1

daniel wrote

I think they make sense in certain situations, but I also think they are over prescribed. I know from biology and medical studies that a newborn infant doesn't really develop its immune system until at least 18 months and relies on the mother's antibodies for the initial post-birth period. So I think it's unethical to push vaccines on scared new parents immediately after a kid is born, because the efficacy is not proven at that age group, yet the risk profile is the same or higher. Beyond age 3 or 4 I think the likelyhood of harm from reasonably administered vaccinations (ie. not 10 in a single visit, but one or two at a time spaced a few months apart) is extremely low. I also think that childhood diseases which are relatively benign should probably not be vaccinated against unless the kid is in a high risk group, ie. a kid with cancer or AIDS should be protected from chicken pox, but an otherwise healthy kid can be allowed to catch it and develop immunity naturally if so desired by the parents. the problem with vaccinating healthy populations against relatively mild childhood illnesses is that the immunity is not lifetime and no long term studies have been done yet on these populations. with chicken pox for example, if you catch it, you're more or less immune for life, but with the current generation many of them will likely require booster shots or loose their immunity as they age and possibly suffer shingles, etc. Customer for life.

It's a risk versus benefit scenario... would I get vaccinated against anthrax? Today, no, but if I was going to a warzone, yes. Would I get vaccinated against HPV, no. If I was working in adult film industry, yes.

−3

daniel wrote

Yes, this August will be my 15 year anniversary as an EMT. I am trained as a firefighter as well and work on an ambualance several days a month in addition to my day job as an engineer. I don't do EMS full time anymore, nor for the side hustle cash, I do it because I like to serve my community. I studied biology in undergrad, but there are not many good jobs in the field for just biology unless you have an advanced degree, and even then it wasn't an appealing carreer to be sitting in a lab all day or teaching at some university. There's a lot of different types of engineers, without revealing too much about my identity... but you can be a mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, software engineer, biomedical engineer, optical engineer, etc. etc. etc. I don't know it all or claim to, I am just pointing out the legitimate flaws in research and false predictions that didn't come true. I understand that's apparently verboten, but they are legitimate concerns with the methodology used to reach many of the dire conclusions the media likes to repeat on loop.

−1

daniel wrote

I stated the primary source. The only reason resenett was there is because it didn't have a paywall. But regardless, pick the straw man and attack the source rather than the reality of the information. The boat did get marooned in 3 meter thick ice in late July in the Arctic and that smacks in the face of the predictions from the so-called experts.

−3

daniel wrote

Forgive me, you're right. Clearly the author of this 'concensus study' knows the conclusions of these papers better than their actual authors do. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll go retire to the reeducation gulag now for my crime of wrongthink. See you at the glorious revolution comrade! l You will go far in the party! Commisar amongstclouds! It has a nice ring to it.

−2

daniel wrote

depends on your age, health, and other factors. generally above 85 can start to get dangerous for people working outdoors if not properly hydrated. people with asthma and other medical conditions are worse off, also the very young and the very old. but perfectly healthy people can have heat related emergencies rather easily at temperatures about 85 degrees if they are working strenuously and not cooling/hydrating properly.

0

daniel wrote

ice cubes/trays

frozen pops (colored sugar water) for the youngins'

frozen juice cans (for breakfast beverages for guests)

lots of chicken and pork, and a few beef livers

one of those plastic gel filled frozen lunch pack cooler things

1

daniel wrote

Please answer my question.

The very scientists cited in the concensus study go on record and state categorically that their conclusions were misrepresented, do you think that is a problem at all? Or perfectly acceptable to ignore?

Here are some of the scientists actual quotes:

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. "

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Scafetta: What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Shaviv: "Nope... it is not an accurate representation. "

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. "

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake."

"Is this an accurate representation of your paper? Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper"

−5

daniel wrote

Some scientists have actually applied the scientific method to the problem and correctly calculated that planting 1 billion hectares (3,861,021 sq miles) of trees would reduce atmospheric CO2 by 25%. It's also not very expensive. Plus even if they're completely wrong about the CO2-warming thing, you can always use trees for stuff. Wood, sap/syrup, fruit, shade, recreational outdoor stuff, etc. So I would be in favor of it. Would even donate time/money/trees. I think it's a win-win idea.

0

daniel wrote

The news is out there if you're looking for it....

This week another class III icebreaker stuck in 10 foot thick ice in the arctic: https://wobleibtdieglobaleerwaermung.wordpress.com/2019/07/15/zweiter-versuch-klimapropaganda-eisbrecher-mit-klimanarren-in-der-nordwestpassage/ Last week, another class III icebreaker stuck in 9 foot thick ice in the arctic: https://resett.no/2019/07/15/norsk-isbryter-matte-snu-nord-for-svalbard-motte-betydelig-tjukkere-ismasser-enn-forventet/ (secondary source, no paywall) https://dagens.klassekampen.no/2019-07-15/stanset-av-isen (original source, paywall)

Over the recent years Artic ice has been thicker than expected and casts serious doubt on forecasted melting.

−2